Purpose and Audience

In the speeches ,"This is Water" by David Foster Wallace, and ,"Morrison Nobel Lecture” by Toni Morrison, the purpose and audience are reflected through the tone and vocabulary that the authors uses. In “This is Water” the author’s target audience is to a group of graduating college students, so he talks about life as an adult and how we need to be “aware of our simple surroundings”. Because Wallace is addressing college graduates, his tone and vocabulary is casual, so that his audience can grab the information without thinking too much about it. Wallace uses terms like “frustrating crap” and phrases like “fat, dead-eyed, over-made-lady” to describe certain situations which would not be normally used in a formal speech. “Morrison Nobel Lecture” on the other hand had a more serious tone. The target audience is more towards serious people who are there to hear a sophisticated speech. Morrison’s speech tells a story, but instead of giving advice on life, Morrison talks about the importance of language and how important it is that we prevent it from going “dead”. Morrison’s speech is also to show the audience that it was possible for her to win the Nobel Prize. Both authors’ speeches are written to cater to their specific audience. Whether it’s to a group of college students about to head into the real world, or to a large group of people who are just there to listen to someone’s prize speech. Both authors’ speeches reflected the certain style to fit their audience.

Compare and Contrast

These speeches are alike being that they are speaking widely and universally on a mature level to large audience’s. They are also very different at the same time. For example, In "This is Water" Wallace was trying to show graduates who are about to be hit with reality what to expect out of the world. He wanted to teach them ways to make it, being out in the adult world, and also how to live happily. In "Nobel Lecture," Morrison reflects back on times of hardship, slavery, and desperate times. It is geared towards a crowd of younger adults and how we must value our ancestors’ history and hardships, and keep on spreading the love of language. Theses speeches each have different tones and attitudes.  In "Nobel Lecture," it was said many times that we must fight for our language, for its one of the few ways we can express culture, history, or even just ourselves. Language is humans mark on the world, without language we the people have nothing. In, “This is Water,” Wallace points out how you have to look past things, and let go. Your life will be happier and you will enjoy everyday more than the last. Just as Morrison was talking about in “Nobel Lecture,” it talks about young kids striving to be the best they can be, by understanding their history and why things happened the way they did. They want to carry on the legacy of language, the correct way. These speeches are alike by taking advice from your elders and listening to some pretty serious thing and carrying them on with you for the rest of your life.

Language vs. Thoughts

If these two authors (Morrison and Wallace) had a nice night out to talk to each other in the same sense they wrote these pieces in, they might talk about how their writings are similar in talking about how to use your power. Morrison would talk about and tell you there are ways you can use your language in a more powerful way, instead of abusing the language that you should embrace it and use it to the fullest of your abilities.

Wallace would talk about how your mind thinks in so many different ways but that we are in a default-setting that is set to think in a “negative mindset” sort to speak. He says specifically that, ”…Everything in my own immediate experience supports my deep belief that I am the absolute center of the universe, the realest, most vivid and important person in existence.” (pg. 2) He would say the way you think about things could be powerful thoughts.

If they were to exchange each others ideas to one another, Morrison would express that you need to use your thoughts to use and exploit your vocabulary and language to the fullest power of your ability. Wallace would agree saying the way you think about any given situation would effect the type of language you plan on using to describe the event. Also saying that if you think about other people, then maybe you could or would be more understanding to a negative outcome you weren’t happy with, therefore giving you a positive mind.

Coffee!

I believe that if the Narrator's sat down and discussed their pieces with one another they would agree to a certain extent because they both expressed a personal opinion and or experience. Although both are different in different ways such as time period and personal experience. they both sought out to educate. to teach a lesson better yet to show the importance of words. I strongly believe that both narrators would share stories and their common goals which may turn out to be the same. I believe that although one is based on personal struggle and the other is based  on struggles as a race both outline the importance of positivity and the effects of negativity. Both articles take a common problem and incorporate it into their own personal story. Although they might have a little conflict deciding what coffee is best. Their stories both outline some important key factors such as words, connotations, human impact and the importance of not judging without prior knowledge of that person. Both stories had a common goal of self realization. in which I believe both accomplished. So in conclusion I believe that they would both have a nice discussion on the roots of the ideas and their responses. they might even drop a flame Speech together who knows!

compare and contrast

The speeches "This is Water" and "Morrison Nobel Lecture” are very similar, but also have many differences. Both are trying to make the reader think about things that they usually don't and learn a lesson from this. However, the way each speaker goes about this is very different. Morrison uses the wisdom of an old lady and Wallace makes it very clear from the beginning that they are neither old nor wise and just wants to share what they have learned. Both speeches also use what seem to be simple stories on the outside to make the reader think about a deeper meaning on the inside. They use these seemingly insignificant stories to pull us in and make us think about things that we normally wouldn't if it was just told to us. Although theses stories have many similarities, they are also quite different. For example, in "Morrison Nobel Lecture”  just one story is told throughout the speech. In "This is Water” Wallace told one story to open and close their speech. They also told one other story in the middle of their speech to help explain the point they were trying to get across to the audience. Another example of how they differ is that in "Morrison Nobel Lecture" Morrison never really gives the audience an exact idea that they were trying to get across so it gives you the freedom to interpret the meaning in many different ways. In "This is Water" Wallace is very straight forward and clear when stating what they want their audience to get out of their speech and leaves almost no room for interpretation. 

comparing speeches

In the speeches “Morrison Noble Lecture” and “This is Water” had similarities as well as differences. A major comparison between them was that they both emphasize you have the choice to decide an outcome of something. Furthermore more in “Morrison Noble Lecture” the old lady said “I don't know whether the bird you are holding is dead or alive, but what I do know is that it is in your hands. It is in your hands” which meant that young people have the power to decide if a language is dead or not. “This is Water” explains that we can chose to use our default-settings or have different mind as we approach everyday situations. However on the other hand “This is Water” is more self-centered and deals with problems that someone might have every day, in addition it talks about how one would usually approach a situation after a long day, or how you can think differently in a situation so it is not all about yourself. The “Morrison of Noble Lecture it seem to me that you would need more than one person to decide if a language dies or not because everybody communicates with each other through the art of language.

differing purposes and audiences

While Morrison’s speech was about children trying to obtain wisdom from an elderly women, the audience she was directing it towards was that of other Nobel Prize winners and her peers. When writing her speech she was expecting her audience to interpret it at a much higher level then Wallace did with his audience and to get across a message that she herself already knew. In Morrison’s speech she discusses how if new generations let the languages of the past fall to the wayside we as a society will lose a key part of who we are, that if this language is lost society will forget where it has come from and not value all the lessons learned along the way. Wallace on the other hand intended to get a message across to his audience of graduating seniors. This can be seen in the way in which he wrote his speech, by giving a scenario that is easily relatable and thought provoking. Wallace intended for his audience to come away with the feeling that they do not have to conform to a definition their society has given them. That they may look at the world in any way they see fit, but, he does warn that not everyone may agree with how they view the world be it because of religion, social status, or how important monetary wealth is to them. Unlike Morrison, Wallace was incredibly blunt with his message and had to be to truly have his audience understand him.